The Importance Of Logical Fallacies In Writing

According to the text, The Power of Critical Thinking, by Louis Vaughn, a fallacy is defined as, “An argument form that is both common and defective; a recurring mistake in reasoning (Vaughn, 561). Fallacies can be found in many places whether it is in the media, the workplace, or around your peers. Some fallacies contain the truth while others at a time can be false or misleading. It is essential to be able to identify fallacies because they can be used in many ways, some good some bad. Fallacies are used every day, whether it is to influence someone's opinion to agree with one side of an argument rather than the other or to draw in others by appealing to their emotions or authority. Today, I will be discussing three important fallacies and give examples of each. These fallacies include Genetic Fallacy, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Tradition.

A fallacy is defined as a kind of error in reasoning. They can be persuasive and be created both unintentionally and intentionally in order to deceive others from the truth. Fallacies often indicate a false belief or cause of a false belief (dowden, 2006). An argument or situation commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support the conclusion. This defeats the purpose of the argument since its point is to give reason to support the conclusion. Fallacies affect the outcome of our everyday decision making process. There are three types of logical fallacies discussed in this paper along with the importance of utilizing critical thinking skills.

Many authors use different techniques such as appeals, evidence, and sense of urgency to support an argument, or claim. In the essay, "Why Don’t We Complain," by William Buckley, one of his main points is that people today are not complaining and speaking up. In another essay, "The Paranoid Style of American Policing," by Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of his main points is that violence is not always necessary to solve a problem. Both authors use appeals such as pathos, logos, or ethos to make their arguments stronger. Both authors have similar arguments, that the government is getting too much power from the people.

Introduce the first main point of the argument. Then, provide evidence from the sources. Multiple pieces of evidence should be provided to support the main point.

A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. It is an argument that makes an error in logic or makes assumptions that should not have been made. In the formal setting, an argument is two sides presenting their sides use logic and deductive reasoning. In the book “Writing Arguments”, authors John Ramage, John Bean, and June Johnson compare several fallacies. The authors’ describe the straw man fallacy as an argument when a writer constructs a misinterpreted version of an argument, that distorts its original meaning and intentions, soon after criticizes that as if it were the real argument. (401) A false dilemma fallacy is explained as two choices that are presented as if though they are the only

In this article titled “Analyzing Arguments: Those You Read and Those You Write” goes over multiple strategies and examples to help you analyze the meaning and purpose of a specific argument and how to strengthen your own.

There are multiple argumentation styles and types of reasoning a writer can use to make their argument effective. There are three main argument styles, which are called the Aristotelian approach, the Rogerian approach, and the Toulmin approach. Each of these styles incorporates evidence in different ways and have the claim stated in different sections of the argument. There are different types of reasoning that can be used to strengthen a writer’s argument, which include inductive and deductive reasoning. However, writers can accidently use fallacious reasoning, which can make their arguments invalid and unreliable. Fallacious reasoning can also discredit the author’s argument. Anne Fadiman and Rebecca Skloot have different and similar writing techniques. Anne Fadiman uses a Rogerian approach in her writing whereas Rebecca Skloot uses the Aristotelian approach. Even though they both have fallacies within their arguments, Rebecca Skloot is more effective and successful in her arguments than Anne Fadiman because she uses an Aristotelian approach and uses different types of inductive/ deductive reasoning to strengthen her claim.

“When it was over, my favorite quote made it into all the newspapers. The detective said, ‘I was dealing with a mastermind,” (Thompson 5). Developing credibility throughout the text is essential when writing an argument

Newspapers and other forms of news are very vital communication methods in the world today. The goal of news is to sell us their ideas by being biased and talking about how their idea is best. News can give us biased information although, the viewer could do further research on the

The author’s credibility is established before, throughout, and at the end of the article by giving sources from media news, such as CNN and other publications from the New York Times. The problem with CNN being a “media” news source is that information isn’t always proven true and is often opinionated. On ,“Karen Douglas, Business Insider, 2017”, from a poll taken of 3000 random participants, CNN was considered more or less distrustworthy. This poll supports the statistical evidence that declares CNN’s information 47% untrue or false on (CNN File PunditFact 2017) . If David uses CNN for statistical reports to support his left sided point of view, how can we know if what he says is even true? We can’t. However, the author uses emotional reasoning and empathy to sway the reader into understanding and accepting his point of view, even if the view is not 100% true.

An effective argumentative source develops consistency in reasoning and has logos that influences people through logic. Logos explains and establishes the ideas of the writer in

In the online newspaper article, “Obama Seeks More Than $1 Billion To Fight Opioid Abuse” posted on nytimes.com, written by Gardiner Harris. In this newspaper article, writer uses several different types of claims to advance the writing. Additionally, the article also contain multimedia element to support the claims. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the different types of claims used by the writer and discuss how effectively writer used the claims to present the idea.

Each point essentially answers the "how" of the point proceeding it. Employing this technique allows the reader to see the reasoning behind the author's point of view. The author proves to the reader their point has basing in reality. Logical reasoning is an effective argumentative tool because the reader can see the thought process that led to the author's conclusion, enabling the points to be believable. Lorber gives her logical reasoning credibility with quotes from other published works that consult the essay's

When you read, hear, or see any kind of nonfiction, you have a choice on what to consider when interpreting the text. You can choose to look over the general idea of the piece or you can closely consider the claims made and their fallacies. The effect that close consideration has is that in some cases it discredits the author 's argument by identifying the fallacies within the text. At the same time it can also help you prove your argument against someone 's, or prove another person 's argument to be valid. Only paying attention to the general idea of a nonfiction claim, specifically a claim of policy, will often lead to misinterpretation and blind acceptance. Many people could take these claims as a call to action that lead to dangerous exploits because of the fact that they are ignorant and let factless claims dictate their actions.

c. Errors in logic, or fallacies, can make an argument appear weak and unconvincing. Read about good arguments versus fallacies, and complete the five exercises. Then write two syllogisms of your own that are based on fallacies, and explain their logical errors. You might choose from these fallacies: validity problem, post hoc, slippery slope, straw man, inconsistency, begging the question, false dilemma, non sequitur, and ad hominem.